United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

(PC) Adcock v. Peery

(PC) Adcock v. Peery
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 20, 2021
(PC) Adcock v. Peery

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEROME ADCOCK, No. 2:20-cv-1235 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUZANNE PEERY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he was exposed to hazardous materials in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. By order dated November 5, 2020, the court screened the complaint and determined it did not contain any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given thirty days leave to file an amended complaint and warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, requested additional time to file an amended complaint, updated his address, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

27 For the reasons state above, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign a district judge to this action.

1 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See | Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10 | Dated: January 19, 2021 B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB:12 || DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil Rights/adcol235.f&r.dism

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.